Thursday, June 30, 2016

LONDON — Trying to address accusations of anti-Semitism in Britain’s opposition Labour Party, its embattled leader, Jeremy Corbyn, on Thursday provoked more outrage by comparing Israel to “self-styled Islamic states or organizations.”

Mr. Corbyn’s comment drew instant condemnation from colleagues and Israeli politicians, who initially believed that he had said “Islamic State” rather than Islamic states. But members of his staff insisted that he was actually referring to countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia — which are not self-styled and generally are called “Muslim nations” — or to organizations like Hamas. (Israelis would hardly be mollified by the clarification, given that Hamas is a Palestinian group classified as terrorist by Britain and the United States.)

So what did Corbyn actually say? It was this:

Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those of various self-styled Islamic states or organizations.

The unintentionally hilarious thing is that Corbyn thinks that this is supposed to placate the Jews.The sooner this odious creep vacates the political scene, the better.

On Wednesday, Iran’s ‘moderate president’ Sheikh Hassan Rouhani urged Muslims around the world to make it their sacred duty to participate in al-Quds rallies in support of nine million oppressed Palestinians. In Iran over 850 cities including Tehran are planning to hold al-Quds rallies on Friday July 1, a holiday in the country. He urged the Iranian nation to renew their allegiance with the late Imam Khomeini by staging a rally which would signify seven decades of the sufferings by homeless Palestinians...

There's plenty of room in Iran. Why don't they let the "nine million oppressed" and "homeless" Palestinians live there?As for Ken "Quisling" Stone: there's a particularly squalid quadrant of Hades reserved for a Jew who does dirt to him own in order to further the genocidal agenda of a snake like Khomeini.

July 1 is a time for lefties to endure an entire uninterrupted day of cringe-inducing displays of patriotism. Red and white facepaint everywhere and way too many people will harangue and lecture the world on social media about peacekeeping, multiculturalism and our "dreamy" prime minister.

The patriotic trinkets news outlets offer on Canada Day -- like a Canadian flag cut-out centrefold -- are just awful.

Over at CBC Montreal, they've put together probably the worst example of Canada Day schlock in a generation: The not-so-great Canada Day "Tuques Up" challenge. It is like a patriotic card game version of charades...

Patriotic charades? Oh, no, how dreadful! ;)Speaking of which (being dreadful, that is), I can hardly listen to CBC radio these days because it's mostly a morass of leftist victimhood culture (i.e. a member of one or another victim group winging on and on about suffering/bigotry/racism/the patriarchy/yadda yadda yadda).Cringe-inducing? You betcha!

So says a HuffPo blogger who bills herself as a "writer, dancer, musician, communicator" had an epiphany, and how lucky are we that she's sharing it with us?Like, soooo lucky I might race out and buy a lottery ticket.Here's what the multi-tasker has to say:

Contrary to American popular belief, Islam has a culture and history of women empowerment. In the Qur’an, which is believed to be God’s word told to Prophet Muhammad, women and men are described as equals in everyday actions and responsibilities. When it comes to family, charity, children, sex, and much more, a man and a woman have the same duties and that is to continue on the straight path.

Early Islamic women kept this idea alive. The first Muslim woman was Khadija, Mohammed’s first wife. Without her influence, Islam might not have emerged as successfully as it did. Khadija was a business woman and a land owner in the lands of Arabia. When Mohammed was given revelations, it was Khadija that ensured him that he was not going insane, but that he was a chosen one. It was Khadija that pushed Mohammed to listen to God and the angels that were trying to communicate with him and to not run in fear. It was Khadija that gave Muhammad the support and confidence in his development as becoming God’s last prophet. Khadija, a woman, was the strength that allowed Islam to fully bloom. Just this one example gives us a view on how true Muslim women are; outspoken, driven, certain and courageous, the epitome of a feminist.

So it’s no surprise to see Muslim woman today modeling themselves after these prominent female figures. Muslim girls look towards these instances of strength for guidance in this scary, patriarchal society. These modern women are not afraid to go against the grain in the name of their belief like wearing the hijab to covey their religious devotion. Hijab is the headscarf that is worn by Muslim woman and no; it is not supposed to be forced on them by their fathers and husbands. Wearing or not wearing the Hijab reflects a Muslim woman’s own a (sic)personal choice.

Two thoughts spring to mind. First, if "Khadija was the strength that allowed Islam to fully bloom," what was Aisha?Other than a very young girl who, at the age of nine, got shtupped by Islam's founder, I mean. Might she be seen as epitomizing female powerlessness, a weakness which offsets Khadija's supposed strength?Also, if your society is "scary" and "patriarchal," how do you suppose it would deal with uppity chicks who refuse to wear the hijab? Is it really her own "personal choice"?We know what happened to one young woman--Aqsa Parvez--who decided to flout the patriarchy and uncover her hair. And she's far from the only young Muslim woman to have encountered scary patriarchs who make similar demands, and inflict similar punishments, on their recalcitrant daughters.

In what can only be described as the grimmest of ironies, Americans were actually rescued by the very people Obama was doing his damndest to disempower (my bolds):

One section of the report seems to allege that U.S. officials fundamentally misunderstood who their allies were at the time. The Republican majority's report found that 35 Americans were saved not by a "quasi-governmental militia" as previous reports concluded, or even a group the U.S. saw as allies. Instead, the report determines that the Americans were saved by the "Libyan Military Intelligence," a group composed of military officers under the Moammar Khaddafy regime, the Libyan dictator who the U.S. helped topple just one year earlier.

The February 17 Martyr Brigade, "recommended by the Libyan Government and contractually obligated to provide security to the Mission Compound," had fled, the report found. "In other words, some of the very individuals the United States helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution were the only Libyans that came to the assistance of the United States on the night of the Benghazi attacks," the report states.

That's the take-away from this screenshot of Jewish leftist thinking (the writer is talking specifically about Israelis, but I don't see much daylight between this description and the way the Jewish left in most other places see things, too):

Israelis, goes the leftist ur-narrative, used to be reasonable and genial people. They used to believe in peace, which is why they signed the Oslo accords and welcomed back Yasser Arafat and strove toward a permanent two-state solution of peace and reconciliation. Then, like a devil out of Bulgakov, Netanyahu, a Middle East Mephistopheles, appeared on the scene, and, with his dark tricks, poisoned hearts and minds, turning Israelis from a gaggle of glowing Labor-voters to a rabble of benighted boobs, always reaching for their pitchforks and always thirsty for blood. If only reason would prevail, cries the Israeli left, peace will soon return. And if it does not, disaster is almost certain.

Omitted from this story, of course, are a few inconvenient facts, including most mentions of unrequited Israeli concessions and almost all talk of escalating Palestinian incitement and violence. But bring none of this up with the left, please: Only fools and racists still talk about things like terrorism or religion or national pride.

Thank God for "fools and racists." But for them, Israel, and, for that matter, the entire Western world, would have been sunk long ago.

Monday, June 27, 2016

It's "flameless cremation"--an environmentally-friendly body disposal method that amounts to "one flush and you're good to go."I think it would be ideal for Naomi Klein, David Suzuki and Al Gore and others of that ilk.

Muslim and LGBTQ organizers issued dual statements at the event, signed by community leaders and prominent organizations on each side, denouncing hatred and bigotry. Mayor John Tory and provincial Environment and Climate Change Minister Glen Murray, who is gay, were there to show support.

“As a community we stand firmly against all forms of oppression including homophobia and transphobia,” said Jeewan Chanicka, a public school principal, and Shaila Carter, CEO of the Muslim Women’s Collective, reading from a Muslim statement endorsed by Islamic scholars and Muslim writers, businesspeople and imams, including Yusuf Badat of the Islamic Foundation of Toronto, one of the Canada’s oldest Muslim organizations.

It warned that Islamophobia is on the rise after the Orlando shooting because of the gunman’s identity: U.S. citizen Omar Mateen was the son of Afghan immigrants and an observant Muslim who reportedly pledged his support for Daesh before carrying out the massacre.

Mateen’s identity is “sadly being used to make assumptions about all Muslims,” says the LGBTIQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, two-spirit, intersex and queer) statement. “Some are using this attack on LGBTIQ people to justify their racism and Islamophobia.” We strongly believe that homophobia cannot be fought with Islamophobia, racism or any other form of xenophobic action.”

But it can and must be fought by acknowledging the gyrating elephant, something which, obviously, no one from either group is prepared to do. (BTW, it isn't a "phobia"--or "racism"/"hatred"-- if your concerns are legit.)Update: Yusuf Badat condemns "all forms of oppression including homophobia," does he? That's pretty rich coming from an imam who, according to anti-jihad blogger Pointe de Bascule, is given to "blaming the internet for the radicalization of young Muslims while disseminating around him books by Maududi that praise jihad and Islamic takeover."

I haven't agreed with J. Kay for a while now (on the other hand, I usually agree with his mother, Barbara), but I think he nails it with this:

All Western nations are vulnerable to romantic primitivism. But Canada is a special case, because much of our artistic and literary firmament is built on the unspoken conceit that an authentic Canadian soul can exist only in a state of nature. Most of us live in cities these days. But we are soothed by the idea that there exists some heart-pure children of the forest who remain firmly—even genetically—rooted to field and stream.

For decades, it has been a point of principle that Indigenous peoples in Canada must chart their own future without interference from outsiders. Our First Nations will have to make difficult decisions about what mix of traditional and modern elements they want in their society; and address wrenching questions about integration, relocation, language use, and education. Addressing these hard questions will be all the more difficult if Canada’s leading thinkers—even those with the best of intentions, such as the authors of In This Together—build the project of reconciliation on a foundation of attractive myths.

It is our moral duty as a Canadians to acknowledge the full horror of what was done to Indigenous peoples. But we must not respond to this horror by seeking to conjure an Indigenous Eden of postcolonial imagination—a society that never truly existed in the first place.

It was brave of J. Kay to write this essay because you know it is not going to go over well with the soignée elitists/Justin Trudeau fans he hangs out with in his current incarnation as editor of The Walrus.

Speaking of someone who romanticizes primitivism, behold
Justin Trudeau (Aboriginal name: Plays Not With Full Deck).

Sunday, June 26, 2016

Zakaria's spin-doc was on the tube again last night, and I watched in astonishment as he drew an exact parallel between war-like words in Deuteronomy and calls for jihad in Islamic scripture--as if Jews, too, have been engaged in an ongoing "holy war" since the get-go.At one stage, Zakaria has a sit down with ardent jihadist Anjem Choudary. And while I deplore Choudary's supremacist ideology, it has the advantage of being real and pure and true. Unlike Zakaria's mealy-mouthed half-truths, which are designed to lull and gull the infidel into thinking that Choudary's version of Islam--the version described below--is not the real deal:

It's not theology, it's politics. Radical Islam is the product of the broken politics and stagnant economics of Muslim countries. They have found in radical religion an ideology that lets them rail against the modern world, an ideology that is now being exported to alienated.

Wrong. Radical Islam is the product of Islam's holy texts and the example of Islam's founder, a warrior with a penchant for dominance and conquest.Fareed won't tell you that, though, because he wants you to feel guilty about the crappy state of the Muslim world, and to make you think that you--that we--bear the onus for fixing it:

There's really only one way: Help the majority of Muslims fight extremists, reform their faith, and modernize their societies. In doing so, we should listen to those on the front lines, many of whom are fighting and dying in the struggle against jihadis. The hundreds of Muslim reformers I've spoken to say their task is made much harder when Western politicians and pundits condemn Islam entirely, demean their faith, and speak of all Muslims as backward and suspect.

Seems to me that Fareed, the "moderate," is calling for outright submission, which is exactly what the radical likes of Choudary demand. However, no matter who insists on it--whether "moderates," like Zakaria, or "radicals," like Choudary--to paraphrase the infamous words of Turkey's Erdogan, submission is submission, and that's it. And that task--our submission/capitulation--is made much harder when Westerners actually know what's in the Koran, the Hadith and Islam's other holy works such that we understand from whence jihad stems, and condemn it entirely.

The reason it's a perfect storm, as this Swedish Jew explains, is because the stupid, sanctimonious Swedes are far more concerned about "Islamophobia" than they are about the Muslims' Jew-hate:

The arrival of high numbers of refugees in 2015 has compounded these concerns [about the Jews' safety]. Here, we hear reports of regular occurrences of violence at temporary facilities housing refugees, due to racism and intolerance within this group. As a result, special homes are being set-up to protect Christian refugees, LGBT refugees and refugees where mothers travel alone with their sons. Here, we can see a lack of political will to speak out on these issues as well as minimal mainstream media attention regarding the racism or discriminatory values that this population may bring into Swedish society. As a result, there are currently no initiatives to address anti-Semitic attitudes, neither among this wave of 150,000 refugees, the majority of whom seek to make Sweden their long-term home, nor among the hundreds of thousands that arrived in previous years.

The miscalculation at the core of this situation is that any rise in Islamophobia, with the potential detrimental consequence in terms of radicalizing local Muslims, is perceived as far more dangerous than the risk of ignoring a rise in anti-Semitism.

The arrival of high numbers of refugees in 2015 has compounded these concerns considerably. Here, we hear reports of regular occurrences of violence at temporary facilities housing refugees, due to racism and intolerance within this group. As a result, special homes are being set-up to protect Christian refugees, LGBT refugees and refugees where mothers travel alone with their sons. Here, we can see a lack of political will to speak out on these issues as well as minimal mainstream media attention regarding the racism or discriminatory values that this population may bring into Swedish society. As a result, there are currently no initiatives to address anti-Semitic attitudes, neither among this wave of 150,000 refugees, the majority of whom seek to make Sweden their long-term home, nor among the hundreds of thousands that arrived in previous years.

How delusional/blind/clueless are the Swedes? This says it all:

Mainstream politicians and media believe and expect that immigrants will reward Swedish generosity by integrating seamlessly into Swedish customs and values. From their point of view, there is no need to discuss or debate whether this theory actually holds in reality, and, if not, to define and implement decisive action to uproot anti-Semitism in Sweden, independent of its source. This erroneous political correctness and acceptance is a plague for Swedish society in general, but, if their vilification continues unchecked, Jews will be its first victim.

Jews will be its first victim, but you can be sure the Swedes will be its second.

They must not just condemn outrages and disown the perpetrators, but advocate positively for tolerance toward Westerners, women, homosexuals and those of different religious beliefs, or no beliefs.

If more Muslims imparted these values to their children, violence in the name of Islam would decrease.

If more Muslims imparted these (Western) values to their children, would they still be Muslim? Or would they be Muslim in name only? And isn't that, in fact, part of the problem--immigrant parents who move away from their traditions only to find that that makes their children feel adrift in the larger society, and therefore more inclined to want to search for the identity--and the "values"-- their parents had shunned? How many "lone wolf" jihadis are born right here in the West?

Hassan's suggestion sounds eminently sensible, but, alas, when it comes to Islamic supremacism and all the bad stuff it engenders, including jihadi terrorism, there is no magic bullet.Update: Here's another problem--"moderate" Muslims who, instead of copping to the reality of what Islamic scripture has to say about homosexuality, insist that it says no such thing:

Raheel Raza, president of the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow, and an author who tries to fight hate in Islam, said the video is shocking and Quick's remarks dehumanize gay men. She said the comments do not reflect the teachings of Islam.

"It's an appalling video, it's shocking. We have a responsibility to not make statements that lead to violence," Raza said. "What right does one human being have, no matter what faith, no matter what religion, to condemn another person to death? This is at the core of this issue."

Raza said the belief Quick expressed in the video that gay men should die is not found in the the (sic) Qur'an. She says the Islamic holy book does not accept "homosexuality," but it does not condone violence against the gay community, either.

Raheel's on the right side, but she does her cause a grave disservice by misrepresenting the contents of the Quran (which calls for homosexuals to be stoned to death, the reason why gays are executed in Muslim countries--Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen--that practice Quran-inspired sharia law).This assessment by another moderate is far more honest (my bolds):

Mainstream Muslim-American imams or religious leaders believe that everything the prophet said was true. Cognitive dissonance is the fundamental psychological issue that is swept under the rug, but that needs to be a conversation in American mosques. On the topic of homosexuality, most American-Muslim scholars, such as Yasir Qadhi, will argue that in a pluralistic society such as that of the United States, we must tolerate lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans even while we believe that they live sinful lives.

More liberal American-Muslim leaders will advocate that we are obliged to fight for the LGBT community. Reza Aslan and Hasan Minhaj, after last year’s Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage, followed the liberal line in An Open Letter to American Muslims on Same-Sex Marriage. They cited the Quran ("Be just, for this is closest to righteousness")and said God's mercy and compassion extends "to all people, not just those who are straight.”

But if it were really that simple, their letter would not be necessary. Their logic, unfortunately, is torn apart by any honest reading of the prophet’s words.

Re: Islamism? Perish The Thought!, Barbara Kay, June 22.It is unbelievable so many individuals try to blind themselves to the fact some Muslims advocate hostility against those who are not in their particular faith group, and that includes other Muslims. From all evidence, it appears Omar Mateem was gay, that a local iman inspired Muslims to act compassionately toward gays by killing them, and that by doing so Mateem could erase his guilt of being gay.

Barbara Kay is correct in pointing out the methods other than firearms, used by terrorists who were all motivated in some degree by their interpretation of Islam. It is not Islamophobic to face the facts there are such people in this country, as evidenced by attacks by Islamic-inspired terrorists and that the Mounties and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service are surveilling as many as their budgets and physical resources will allow. Fortunately, there are Muslims who advocate for a reformation in the interpreting of wording that might encourage those looking at terrorism to adopt a more tolerant approach to others.Norman Gardner, Toronto

My response:

Letter-writer Norman Gardner thinks that Muslims who call for a reinterpretation of "wording" in Islam's sacred texts could prompt potential terrorists to "adopt a more tolerant approach to others."

Well, that's certainly one possibility--and a highly optimistic one at that.

The more likely scenario, however, sees such "moderate" voices being shunned, not only by young Muslims searching for "authenticy"--which means a literalist interpration of the texts--but also by non-Muslims, who think the only "authentic" Muslim leaders are imams who dress and think in the most traditional ways.

Therefore, the best--and one might argue the only--way for Muslims to effect the sort of change that will result in more tolerance is not by performing Cirque du Soleil-worthy contortions in a vain attempt to try to make the wording say something it does not. Instead, it is via a wholesale rejection of what is actually written.

Poor ISIS. The left in our country -- liberals, progressives, the administration and their media cohorts -- can't face up to, or even admit, the evils of radical Islam, no matter what the Islamists do. One wonders if the jihadists set off a dirty nuke in the press room of the New York Times whether the reporters would even object. They'd probably write an editorial about the unhappy childhoods of the bombers and how one of them was once humiliated by a Christian schoolmate in a volleyball game during recess in Beirut.

It's almost like a disease. In fact, it is a disease -- the real Islamophobia... not irrational fear of Islam, but irrational fear of blaming Islam.

Consider Orlando. Not just the uber-lefty slickster Van Jones, who comes off like a re-upped CNN version of the Soviet Union's old Vladimir Pozner, but Kirsten Powers, playing her "liberal" role on Fox, blathered on about how she didn't really consider Omar Mateen a radical Islamic terrorist but someone who was mentally ill and an unfortunately guilty homophobic gay.

I hate to be rude to Kirsten, who seems like a nice person, but that is incredibly naive. Of course Mateen was a mentally ill homophobic gay, unfortunate or not. So what? The point is he was a mentally ill homophobic gay who believed in radical Islam. It is radical Islam that gave him the license to kill, indeed urged him to kill with its precepts, all those innocent people. Without radical Islam, they would all be alive today...

Last week I attended a talk given by one of Canada's big time security/terrorism experts. I mean, this guy has a C.V. that runs to dozens of pages, and his expertise in the area, we were told, is second to none, not only in Canada but internationally, too.I knew we were not going to see eye-to-eye, though, when, early on, he said he was a Democrat and used the Obama locution--or, rather, circumlocution--"violent extremism" to refer to the terrorist acts of radicalized Muslims who pledge allegiance to ISIS and/or other groups waging the jihad du jour.Those in attendance were treated to a mind-blowing display of multi-coloured charts and graphs and maps, replete with dots and lines and arrows, along with a somewhat abstruse explanation re how all this stuff could help predict where in Africa groups such as Boko Haram might strike next.As impressive as this was--and, boy, was it ever impressive!--it soon dawned on me that something was missing. That something: the understanding that all this "criminal" activity wasn't simply a matter of organized crime with an Islamic flavor--the equivalent of a Muslim Costa Nostra. It was about true belief, religious fanaticism and the desire to supersede Western Civilization so that Islam could be on top, as per Allah's promises to Islam's founder.Sadly, however, this expert, like many on the Left, could not wrap his (secular, non-religious) head around the religious underpinnings of all the "violent extremism." He even opined that the Omar Mateens of the world would likely act out in a violent way no matter what (meaning that the Islamic radicalization doesn't really matter).

Seriously. He really said that.He also said that, here in Canada, it was awesome how everyone got along so well. (Oh, yeah, Mr. "Expert"? Have you been to an Al Quds Day at Queen's Park where imports from Islamic lands shriek "Allahu Akbar!" and "Death to Israel"? Clearly not.) It should come as no surprise that the whole presentation left me feeling depressed bordering on the bereft. Because if this is "the guy"--the one who advises government bigwigs and military brass on the ins and outs of terrorism--things are even worse than I thought they were. And, believe me, going in I already thought they were pretty damn calamitous.

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

So after a public outcry, LoLy's DOJ released an unredacted version of Omar Mateen's calls to police.Unredacted, perhaps, but not exactly untampered with, as you can see in this transcript of one of the calls (not my bolds):

Orlando Police Dispatcher (OD)
Shooter (OM)

OD: Emergency 911, this is being recorded.

OM: In the name of God the Merciful, the beneficial [in Arabic]

OD: What?

OM: Praise be to God, and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of God [in Arabic]. I let you know, I’m in Orlando and I did the shootings.

OD: What’s your name?

OM: My name is I pledge of allegiance to [omitted].

OD: Ok, What’s your name?

OM: I pledge allegiance to [omitted] may God protect him [in Arabic], on behalf of [omitted].

"God the Merciful" sounds non-threatening and almost, well, Jewish. (One has the sense that Obama's DOJ would be inclined to translate "Allahu Akbar!" as "Go, God!")"Allah the Merciful," on the other hand, is as Islamic--and, in Mateen's case, as jihadist--as it gets. (As for that "beneficial"--I'm no linguist, but I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be "beneficent." And the name that's been "[omitted]" is none other than the Islamic scholar--he's a PhD, no less--who heads up ISIS.)So who, exactly, do the Obami think they're fooling with this translation (aside from themselves, I mean)?Update: Obama had done that "Voila, no Allah" thing before.

Monday, June 20, 2016

The best defense being a good offence, today CAIR released a study that documents the mega-bucks--$205 million, to be exact--that "33 Islamophobic groups had access to...in total revenue between 2008-2013."Ooo, scary, right?Well, no, not exactly. In fact, the "Islamophobic" groups and individuals listed on CAIR's islamophobia.org website include many of the most familiar and respected names in anti-jihad ranks. These "Islamophobes," so called, include, for instance:

Bill Maher

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Brigitte Gabriel

Robert Spencer

Daniel Pipes

Frank Gaffney; and

Zuhdi Jasser.

Not one of these individuals "hates" Muslims. Each one, however, is active in speaking out against jihad, sharia, ISIS, Islamic supremacism, the Caliphate, and all the rest of that wonderful stuff.

You see, CAIR understands that the best way to control the narrative (the bogus one, which presents Islam as being entirely benign save for a few individuals who have "twisted" the faith's message of peace) is to delegitimize the very people who are brave enough to stand up and tell the truth, even at the cost of being labeled "haters" and bigots by the likes of CAIR (or, as I like to think of 'em, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holyland terrorism funding case).

What jihadis love is death, sweet death.It's what they espouse to their dying breath.What jihadis love is martyrdom.Panting virgins wait up in Kingdom Come.Lord, we don't need to find their "motive".It's apparent and plain in their battle cry.It's Fort Hood and Orlando and Bataclan--A plan to for them to be supreme.What jihadis love is death, sweet death.It's what they espouse to their dying breath.What the world needs now's a clue, yoo hoo.Love's a lovely thing, but it won't save you.Lord, we don't need more clueless leftistsWho say hugs and good wishes will turn the tide.Who say sunbeams and rainbows will melt their hearts.Oy vey, that stuff--it's suicide!What jihadis love is death, sweet death.It's what they espouse to their dying breath.What jihadis want is to terrorize.When will all you chumps open up your eyes?...

There's news that the Six Flags organization will be opening some theme parks in Saudi Arabia, perhaps the least fun place on the planet. Hence this unintentionally amusing para from the Reuters piece:

It is unclear whether the theme park company will tailor its rides, which include water slides, to the social codes of a country where public spaces are gender segregated and patrolled by state-sponsored Islamic morality enforcers.

It will definitely have to tailor its rides to suit the country. For one thing, how is it even safe for chicks clad in heavy, head-to-toe black shrouds to go on any unadapted Six Flags rides? Also, the rides will have to be gender segregated--either by the ride (some rides being deemed unsuitable for the second-class sex) or, a la swimming pool rules, by designated times when each gender can use it.And, sorry, but those morality police are bound to put a damper on the fun: heck, spoiling peoples' fun is part of their job description. All in all, that makes a Six Flags Over Riyadh theme park one to avoid.

Here's Goggles-wearing Justin looking like he's "super into" his fingers. (I suspect it's not unlike the way he looks once he's smoked a doob or two: "Wow, these fleshy things seem to be part of my body--but are they?")

Let's suppose some neo-Nazi opened fire in an African-American church, killing scores of people, and during the course of shooting spree he phoned police to praise Hitler, shout an "Allahu Akbar!" or two and pledge allegiance to the Third Reich.Do you think Obama's Attorney-General would censor all references to his evil affiliations prior to releasing the transcripts of his recorded messages to police?Of course it wouldn't.That's the DOJ's exact M.O., however, re Omar Mateen's recording phone calls to police. And Obama lackey Loretta Lynch is trying to justify the removal of every last reference to ISIS and radical Islam by saying that she doesn't to air Mateen's "propaganda."Well, why the hell doesn't you, LoLy? Are Americans so fragile--or so simple-minded--that they would be unable to process such utterances? Or is the real problem, at least as Obama, the most duplicitous POTUS ever, sees it, is that hearing such things will underscore the reality of the threat ISIS poses---a reality he has done his damndest to downplay for years now--and that, as a result, Americans would become really, really angry.So angry, in fact, that they might just take it out on Hillary Clinton, the woman Obama is counting on to preserve and even further his precious legacy (precious to him, anyway; many of us see it as a legacy that's so embarrassing and douchey that it isn't worthy of celebration)? Call my cynical, but I'd be willing to bet big bucks that this censorship effort, this insult to Americans' intelligence and their First Amendment rights, is aimed at protecting Islam and Obama's "legacy," and that that palaver about not wanting to spread ISIS "propaganda" is the lamest of lame-o excuses.It goes without saying that if a Republican administration were acting in this blatantly high-handed and undemocratic fashion, the media would be grabbing onto it like a pitbull who has latched onto a particularly succulent bone, summoning up its highest dudgeon and more overwrought invective to condemn the obvious outrage. But since it's Obama, PBUH, media reaction, as per usual, is muted and supine: muted because it is supine. That being so, this is all we should expect from "intrepid" newshounds and the leftist punditocracy, almost every last one of whom is in the take for Obama: ho hum; no biggie; Islam is a peaceful faith that's been "twisted" by a few "lone lupine" malcontents; and let's get back to highlighting the biggest threat to America, namely Donald Trump.Update:Omar Mateen described himself as 'Islamic soldier' in 911 calls to police--but we'll never read it. Update: The Motive Behind the Orlando Massacre? Whatchamacallit.Update:Nanny Obama has apparently had second thoughts on the matter and has now decided that Americans are mature enough to hear a jihadi support the jihad.

It's kind of like School of Rock--or, rather, rocks (the metaphorical variety used to "bludgeon" any Jewish student foolish enough to enroll in it)--without the tunes and with a zingy Islamo-Marxist vibe.

Sunday, June 19, 2016

Many years ago, when my son was but a sprout, we collaborated on a special Father's Day gift. My contribution was a poem. His was a handprint, made with gold-coloured paint.I put them together, framed it, and it has hung in my husband's office ever since.Time marches on, as it is wont to do, and the son whose handprint was once so small is now 18 years-old--and off to a university far, far away come September.In honour of Father's Day, and as a tribute to my husband, who is an awesome Dad, I thought I'd share my poem:

Daddy, here is my hand.It helped you build a castle of sand.It drew that picture you liked so much.It lets me explore the world through touch.It builds cities of LegoAnd lets me blow a bubble.And sometimes--but not too often--It even gets me into a little trouble.It can make a big mess.It can clean it up, too.I can eat by myself.I can tie my own shoe.Daddy,Here is my hand so you will knowWhen to hold on...And when to let go.

Lone wolf,They say you act on your own.You have jihad in your heart,And access to a cell phone.Lone wolf,You've downloaded al-Awlaki.You love his spin and his talki,And now you're one of his flocki.And then it suddenly appears before usThe day you go for broke and blow your stack.And when you join that "Allahu Akbar!" chorusVoila--you're now part of the pack!Lone wolf,Now you're no longer just one.But since we can't face the truth,Won't blame jihad, Blame your gun.

The LGBT community will at some point begin to self-identify as a target of radical Islam.

This is not gay bashing or systemic discrimination. It is a radicalized ideology. Once you are identified as the target, it is increasingly difficult to ignore the ideology that spurs it — be it fundamental Christianity or radical Islam.

While there will be intense debate about the motives of the killer, his conflicted sexual identity, and U.S. gun laws, one cannot ignore his self-identification with ISIS.

One cannot ignore there are others like him who will be radicalized as well.

ISIS has taken the fight against gays to a new level of horror, even beyond the persecution in many Muslim countries.

The Orlando massacre was celebrated by many in the Muslim world, regardless of any affiliation with ISIS.

Certain targets bring a jihadist greater glory, among them Jews and homosexuals.

Obama has shaken the hands of countless Muslim leaders who are responsible for killing more gay people than Omar Mateen. When he preaches about “homophobia” and “hate crimes”, gay people might want to remember that these are standards that he does not apply to Muslims.

That is why he can condemn abstractions like “gun violence” or “homophobia” in Orlando, rather than the concrete hatred in Islam that actually led to the massacre.

Please Visit

Followers

About Me

Scaramouche is my nom de Web. My real name is Mindy G. Alter, and I like to think of myself as a free speecher with a sense of humour. My bailiwick: fighting on behalf of all the good things that free speech helps safeguard, and doing my utmost to highlight the malevolence and imbicilities of those who oppose freedom, whomever they may be.